Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to put some perspective on the controversy. I will end with a demand for greater openness in the process of setting the compensation for members of Parliament.
In economics, one of the most difficult problems we have is to explain the relative wages of people in different occupations. Why does a dishwasher earn typically only the minimum wage? Why do miners earn considerably more than that? What should be the right pay for teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and MPs? Who knows?
In economics we have some answers. One side explains that generally compensation for workers is higher where greater skill and training are required. People who go to occupations that require only high school graduation will typically get a lower level of pay than those who had to graduate from university. Certainly those in graduate and medical school occupations make more than those with lower educations. I think this is a widely accepted principle. There is no problem with fairness. That is generally accepted in society.
Also accepted in society, and the data show that this can be verified, is that the riskier a job, risks like illness and accident, the higher should be the pay. The greater the discomfort, if you have to work in the middle of the night or in a dirty environment, then pay tends to be higher than when it is in a pleasant environment.
Generally these elements are verified by empirical studies. Yet even at a time when there was no government to appeal to there were differences in wages, which could not be explained by these factors alone. Economists know a structure of wages of different-